What happend to make Illinois so Democratic since 1990?

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by ihynes

The more urbanized the population gets, the more government is required. Simple, really.

I beg to differ, a lot of government programs exist to help agriculture. Indeed, their lobbies are often more effective than those representing urban areas.

[US-Traveller]

Originally Posted by Cuito

You said that is 100% why Obama is president today. What ILGOP did during the Senatorial run is not the total (100%) explanation as to why Obama is president right now. Events prior to Obama's Senate run and after helped make him the president today. Your statement attempts to take all of that away - to take away all of Obama's accomplishments.


Maybe you find this language acceptable. To me, these are slogans design to divide America and to appeal to base emotions. Palin's speeches don't offer solutions to anything, only slogans. Like Sen. Bayh said a few days ago: "We need solutions not slogans."

How was Obama going to become president if he hadn't won that senate race? His career would have been dead.

And the person who said that becoming more Republican means "Regression" is clearly not looking at facts. The fact is that Republican areas tend to be newer, more affluent, developing, etc. while Democratic areas tend to be much older, heavily industrialized (declining), heavily unionized, have declining populations, generally higher unemployment, etc. It is not a coincidence that the Midwest and Northeast are seeing the biggest population and economic declines while the West and the South are generally developing and attracting more workers and are experiencing less unemployment.

[ihynes]

Originally Posted by pvande55

I beg to differ, a lot of government programs exist to help agriculture. Indeed, their lobbies are often more effective than those representing urban areas.

The question was why has Illinois been SO Democratic, and that answer lies in the urban services that only large-scale government agencies can provide, not just pork bills for farmer subsidies.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by HamlinandLyndale

What happend to make Illinois so Democratic since 1990?

I think a lot of different factors led to this. Corruption within the party (although definitely on BOTH sides of the political aisle), Jim Edgar retiring from politics, and a lack of good, ethical, electable candidates on the GOP side. What we need is another Jim Edgar. Our state has gone to crap since he left office. We now have the 3rd worst state budget deficit in the country thanks to all the cronyism and political corruption.

[pvande55]

Now that Brady has been confirmed he has an uphill battle. Only 6% of Chicago area GOP voters chose him. And he desperately needs Quinn to raise income taxes, or at least try. He may not get it.

[j33]

I do agree that Brady has an uphill battle. Had a more moderate candidate been nominated on the GOP side, I would be the first to agree that the race would be neck and neck and I would not try and predict a winner, but I'm not so sure anymore. Unless Brady turns things (he started poorly) around or Quinn screws up on the scale of Blago (which could happen, there is a reason the joke about the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory exists), I don't know that Brady has much of a chance.

According to a recent poll, I did see that Brady has a lead over Quinn, but my guess is that it is because people don't really know his record yet. I suspect this will change.

[US-Traveller]

Originally Posted by j33

I do agree that Brady has an uphill battle. Had a more moderate candidate been nominated on the GOP side, I would be the first to agree that the race would be neck and neck and I would not try and predict a winner, but I'm not so sure anymore. Unless Brady turns things (he started poorly) around or Quinn screws up on the scale of Blago (which could happen, there is a reason the joke about the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory exists), I don't know that Brady has much of a chance.

According to a recent poll, I did see that Brady has a lead over Quinn, but my guess is that it is because people don't really know his record yet. I suspect this will change.

It is Bill Brady and the ILGOP's to lose. Exact same situation with the U.S. Senate seat. The ILGOP has its best opportunities since 1994 and 1998.

[j33]

I still maintain the Brady is far too socially conservative to be a player in the Chicago area, which plays a large role in statewide elections. From your multiple posts, I know you are convinced that there is some sort of silent socially conservative majority who will suddenly rise up and vote for the most conservative GOP gubernatorial candidate that we've had in ages, here in Chicago just because you are, but I do not believe that is the case at all, nor do our voting patterns bear that out (keep in mind that in Cook County suburbs, not including the city, Brady only received 5% of the GOP vote).

[cubssoxfan]

2 factors, poor Republican candidates and a lemming-like philosophy by many Chicago voters.

[pvande55]

On social issues, he is pro-life. But, as one commentator noted, pro-life according to the Catholic Church also means to oppose the death penalty. Brady does not, but that is still politically correct for the GOP. I believe most voters favor both. Same sex marriage has little traction outside certain neighborhoods and matrimonial lawyers. Brady's ace is the tax issue. Voters want to believe the budget crisis can be solved without a tax increase, and Brady can feed off that.